Opposes SB 216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be involved in the case like anyone else. Why should these water rights be treated differently than others? > Some of the parameters listed in the bill are not appropriate issues for the CWCB to consider, such as land uses abutting the stream reaches intended for recreational use. Land use decisions are a local government's domain. > Recreation is a very important part of Colorado's economy. The State should • be unified in protecting our recreational economy. Instead, this bill makes recreational use of the water a second class water right. > The bill limits in- stream recreational water rights to certain governmental entities. Why should this use be limited to local governments? SB 216 appears to deny the constitutional right of every citizen to divert water for " beneficial use. > QQ supports clarifying the boat chute rules and providing some limitations on in- channel diversions. However, SB 216 creates more problems that it solves. > Alternatively, guidelines or considerations could be included in the Water Rights Administration Act for the water court to consider. The Water Rights Administration Act could provide that the judge hold a special consultation with the CWCB, rather than adding another layer onto the process for the applicant. This would allow a streamlined process for the applicant. QQ proposes, along with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, to kill this bill and work on drafting the right bill this summer. Both groups are committed to the concept of standards or guidelines for these recreational instream flow rights, but SB 216 is not the right bill. QQ urges the Committee to allow us to all work together this summer to find a mutually agreeable bill. - • What's the rush? This is an important issue that deserves adequate attention. C:\2001 Legislature \RISF- testimony .doc • I - 2